coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Teplička nad Váhom.
5.  On 14 May 1993 the applicant and eleven other persons filed an action with the Žilina District Court for determination of their shares in an estate. The action was dismissed on 24 October 1995.
6.  On 6 May 1996 and on 19 February 1997 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court, without deciding on the merits, returned the case to the District Court to rectify errors in its judgment. On 10 October 1997 the case file was again submitted to the Banská Bystrica Regional Court. The latter quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the District Court on 30 October 1997.
7.  In 2000 the Žilina Regional Court decided that the District Court judge was biased and the case was assigned to a different judge.
8.  Following the Constitutional Court's finding (see below), the District Court and the Regional Court decided on several occasions on the parties' requests for interim measure. The District Court also requested additional information, collected further evidence and invited the parties to the proceedings to specify their claims. The proceedings are still pending before the first-instance court.
9.  On 6 October 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the Žilina District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay and under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time.
10.  The Constitutional Court held that the case was complex from the factual but not from the legal point of view and that the applicant's conduct had not contributed to the length of the proceedings. The Constitutional Court noted that the District Court by its erroneous conduct was responsible for a major part of the duration of the proceedings before the Regional Court. Delays imputable to the District Court totalled 74 months.
11.  The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant SKK 80,000 (the equivalent of 2,062 euros at that time) as just satisfaction in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and ordered the Žilina District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings. The applicant claimed reimbursement of his legal costs in the amount of 941 euros. The Constitutional Court ordered the District Court to reimburse the applicant the equivalent of 479 euros for legal representation.
5.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Valjevo.
6.  On 24 July 1998 and 16 November 1998 the applicant filed two separate claims against his employer with the Municipal Court in Valjevo (“the Municipal Court”), seeking revocation of his suspension from work as well as reinstatement and salary arrears, respectively.
7.  On 9 April 1999 the two sets of proceedings were joined.
8.  Following a remittal, on 14 March 2006 the Municipal Court ruled against the applicant.
9.  On 29 March 2007 and 3 April 2008 the District Court and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld the decision of 14 March 2006.
6.  In 1995 the applicants concluded a sales contract with three individuals buying shares from the A. company (“the company”).
7.  On 13 September 1996 the first applicant brought a civil action requesting the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) to order the company to register the sales contracts in its book of shareholders and to provide them with a certificate of title. On 22 November 1996 the second applicant and Mr Mile Stojčevski joined the first applicant's claim. During the proceedings, the applicants specified their claim on three occasions.
8.   Between 25 June 1997 and 27 November 1998, the first-instance court ordered four adjournments, none of which was requested by the applicants.
9.  On 11 January 1999 the first-instance court dismissed the applicants' claim finding that they had failed to comply with the applicable legislation and that the company had not had a capacity to stand in the proceedings. It also dismissed their request of 27 May 1998 for an interim measure prohibiting the vendors to dispose of the shares.
10.  On 12 April 2000 the Skopje Court of Appeal partly upheld the applicants' appeal of 3 November 1999 and remitted the case for a renewed examination.
11.  On 18 December 2001 the first-instance court dismissed the applicants' claim. The decision was served on them on 22 August 2002.
12.  On 19 March 2003 the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants' appeal. They were served with the decision on 7 May 2003.
5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Arkhangelsk.
6.  In 1975 the applicant was injured in a work-related accident. In 2004 she sued the Arkhangelsk Regional Health Department for disability benefits alleging that her current disability had resulted from that incident.
7.  On 15 December 2004 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk rejected the applicant's claims. The District Court examined, among other evidence, a decision by the Medical and Labour Expert Examination Service of the Arkhangelsk Region, which indicated that the applicant's disability had been caused by the injury she sustained in 1975.
8.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Arkhangelsk Regional Court. The appeal hearing was scheduled for 17 January 2005. According to the Government, the District Court dispatched summonses to the parties, including the applicant and her representative, informing them of the date and time of the appeal hearing. According to the applicant, she did not receive the summons.
9.  On 17 January 2005 the Arkhangelsk Regional Court examined the appeal and rejected it. The applicant and the representative of the Health Department were absent but the prosecutor intervened in the proceedings on behalf of the Health Department and addressed the court. The Regional Court did not examine the question whether the applicant or her representative had been duly summonsed and, if they had not, whether the examination of the appeal should have been adjourned.
6.  Following the financial crisis in the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, as well as the collapse of the banking system in Serbia in the 1990s, in 1998 and 2002 the respondent State adopted specific legislation accepting the conversion of foreign currency deposits in certain banks, including Vojvođanska banka, into a public debt. The legislation set the time-frame (2016) and the amounts, including interest, to be paid back to the banks' former clients. It also explicitly provided, inter alia, that any foreign currency-related judicial proceedings were to be discontinued (for details concerning the relevant domestic law see paragraphs 20-27 below).
7.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Subotica, Serbia. He is retired and receives a pension in the net amount of approximately 250 Euros (“EUR”) monthly.
8.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
9.  On a number of separate occasions, the applicant deposited a certain amount of his foreign currency savings with the Subotica branch of Vojvođanska banka, a bank based in Novi Sad.
10.  In 1991 the said bank refused to release the applicant's funds.
11.  On 21 July 1993 the applicant filed a civil claim, seeking the release of his foreign currency deposits with the interest stipulated.
12.  On 27 September 1993 the Municipal Court in Subotica ruled partly in favour of the applicant and ordered the bank to pay him: (i) 15,584.41 German Marks (“DEM”), on account of his foreign currency savings; (ii) 37,460,000,000 Yugoslav Dinars (“YUD”), for his legal costs[1]; and (iii) the statutory interest due in respect of the latter as of 27 September 1993.
13.  On 20 March 1996 the District Court in Subotica upheld this judgment, adding that the respondent bank should also pay interest on the sum of DEM 15,584.41 which had been awarded. In particular, this interest was to be paid as of 1 January 1993, based on the DEM sight deposit rate (kamata na štedne uloge po viđenju).
14.  On 2 October 1996 the Supreme Court rejected the respondent's appeal on points of law (revizija) and confirmed the District Court's judgment.
15.  On 24 April 2001 and 26 September 2001, respectively, the applicant filed two separate requests with the Municipal Court in Subotica, seeking enforcement of the above judgment by means of a bank account transfer.
16.  On 2 April 2002 the Municipal Court rejected those requests, stating that, under the relevant domestic legislation, all judicial enforcement proceedings aimed at the collection of foreign currency deposits had to be discontinued.
17.  On 30 March 2004 the bank confirmed that the applicant's foreign currency savings had been converted into a public debt in the amount of EUR 8,740.18.
18.  As of 1 March 2007 the applicant was still owed EUR 6,652, having in the meantime, in several instalments and on various grounds, been reimbursed a total of EUR 2,088.18.
19.  There is no information in the case file whether the applicant received any payments thereafter.
5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Novi Sad.
6.  On 7 June 1996 he filed a lawsuit against his former wife, seeking division of their marital property.
7.  On 22 March 1999 the applicant instituted another lawsuit, this time against an individual who had subsequently bought the property in question.
8.  On 25 March 1999 the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Novi Sad joined these two sets of proceedings into a single case.
9.  The Municipal Court scheduled a total of sixteen hearings, only two of which had been held since 3 March 2004.
10.   On 13 July 2005 the Municipal Court appointed an expert. On 22 February 2007, however, it appointed a new expert because the original expert had failed to provide his findings.
11.  On 25 March 2008 the Municipal Court ruled partly in favour of the applicant.
12.  On 28 January 2009 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Novi Sad quashed this judgment and ordered a re-trial.
13.  According to the information in the case file submitted by the parties, the case is still pending at first instance.
4.  The applicant was born in 1919 and lives in Prievidza.
5.  On 10 February 1992 the applicant submitted an inheritance-related claim to the State Notary in Bratislava. On 21 December 1992 the applicant was informed that the ordinary courts had jurisdiction to deal with her claim.
6.  On 11 June 1993 the applicant filed an inheritance-related claim with the Bratislava-vidiek District Court (whose case load was later transferred to the Bratislava III District Court).
7.  On 4 October 1993 the District Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of related inheritance proceedings. The related proceedings were concluded on 20 November 1996.
8.  On 19 June 2006 the Bratislava III District Court delivered a judgment. On 22 August 2006 the applicant appealed.
9.  On 20 September 2007 the Bratislava Regional Court, without deciding on the merits, returned the case to the District Court to rectify errors in its judgment. On 31 October 2007 the case file was again submitted to the Regional Court.
10.  On 20 November 2008 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment. The judgment was served on the applicant on 16 December 2008.
11.  On 3 November 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava III District Court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time. The Constitutional Court awarded the equivalent of 1,794 euros (EUR) to the applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, ordered the District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant's legal costs.
12.  The Constitutional Court observed that the factual complexity of the case did not justify the unreasonable length of the proceedings. The applicant by her conduct had not contributed to the prolongation of the proceedings. The Constitutional Court further noted that during the period under consideration, which exceeded 12 years, the District Court had not proceeded with the case in an effective manner, had held no more than two hearings and delays imputable to the latter totalled more than 5 years.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Trebišov.
5. On 27 August 1991 the applicant filed an action for distribution of matrimonial property with the Spišská Nová Ves District Court.
6.  Following the Constitutional Court's finding (see below) the District Court held seven hearings, obtained further evidence and an expert opinion.
7.  On 29 November 2006 the District Court delivered a judgment which became final on 30 January 2007.
8.  On 13 January 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant's right under 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay. The overall length of the proceedings (more than 14 years at a single instance) was clearly inappropriate. The applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings to a certain extent in that she had failed to appear at hearings on six occasions.
9.  The Constitutional Court awarded the equivalent of 1,810 euros (EUR) at that time to the applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant's legal costs.
4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Artemivsk.
5.  On 16 April 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Artemivsk Town Court against the company A., his former employer, and the State Pension Fund, seeking recalculation of his salary and pension and recovery of salary and pension arrears.
6.  On 5 May 1999, further to the applicant's request, the court ordered an expert examination as regards the accuracy of the calculation of the applicant's salary and pension and suspended the proceedings awaiting the results of the examination.
7.  On 18 November 1999 the court, further to the applicant's request, cancelled the examination and resumed the proceedings.
8.  During the period from 18 November 1999 to 8 April 2002 no court hearings were held in the case.
9.  On 7 February 2003 the court rejected the applicant's claims as not based on the relevant law.
10.  On 6 March 2003 the applicant appealed.
11.  On 13 March 2003 the first-instance court allowed the applicant until 25 March 2003 to rectify shortcomings in his appeal.
12.  On 21 March 2003 the applicant submitted his rectified appeal.
13.  On 12 June 2003 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 7 February 2003.
14.  On 27 August 2003 the applicant appealed in cassation.
15.  By a ruling of 2 September 2003 the first-instance court returned the appeal in cassation to the applicant as lodged out of time.
16.  On 11 September 2003 the applicant appealed against that ruling.
17.  Further to the court's instructions he rectified shortcomings in that appeal and resubmitted it on 18 September 2003.
18.  On 30 October 2003 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the ruling of 2 September 2003.
19.  On 13 November 2003 the first-instance court granted the applicant extension of the time-limit for lodging his appeal in cassation.
20.  On 9 September 2005 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation as unsubstantiated.
21.  Of twenty court hearings six were adjourned at the respondent's request or due to its representative's failure to appear, eight following the applicant's requests and due to the introduction of additional claims.
4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in the town of Novyy Rozdil, Ukraine.
5.  On 4 April 2003 the Mykolaivsky Court awarded the applicant 1,884.77 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1] in salary arrears and litigation expenses incurred by the applicant, to be paid by the State-controlled enterprise OJSC Novorozdilsky Zavod Fungytsydiv.
6.  On 8 May 2003 the State Bailiffs' Service initiated enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment given in the applicant's favour.
7.  On 25 October 2006 the company was declared insolvent. The liquidation proceedings instituted against the company are still pending.
8.  On 19 May 2006 the applicant received UAH 659.32 in part settlement of the judgment debt.
9.  In their submissions the Government stated that on 31 October 2008 the applicant had also received UAH 150.78. The applicant did not disagree.
5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Kyiv.
6.  On 28 January 2004 the Shevchenkivskiy District Court of Kyiv obliged the Shevchenkivskiy District Administration of Kyiv to regularise privatisation of the apartment, which the applicant occupied with her family.
7.  On 13 May 2004 this judgment was upheld by the Kyiv City Court of Appeal and on 27 July 2004 the bailiff service instituted enforcement proceedings in its respect.
8.  On 9 December 2004 the judgment was further upheld by the Supreme Court of Ukraine and became final.
9.  On several occasions the enforcement proceedings were suspended on account of various objections and requests for clarification by the debtor. On 17 and 23 February 2005 the bailiffs' service imposed fines on the Head of the Administration on account of his failure to ensure enforcement of the judgment. In March 2005 the bailiffs' service further requested the prosecutors' office to institute criminal proceedings against him on account of evasion of enforcement, which request on 14 March 2005 was rejected.
10.  On 15 April 2005 the Shevchenkivskiy District Administration issued the applicant and her family with a privatisation certificate and the enforcement proceedings were discontinued. However, in view of the fact that the State Real Estate Inventory Bureau (Бюро технічної інвентаризації) refused to register the applicant's family's title to the apartment on the basis that the title documents issued to another party, a municipal company, had not been invalidated, the enforcement proceedings were subsequently renewed.
11.  On 6 December 2005 the bailiffs' service imposed a fine on the debtor for non-enforcement of the judgment in the applicant's family's favour.
12.  On 19 December 2005 the Shevchenkivskiy District Administration instituted court proceedings seeking invalidation of the municipal company's title to the apartment and the enforcement proceedings in the applicant's favour were suspended.
13.  On 2 June 2006 the Shevchenkivskiy District Court of Kyiv invalidated the municipal company's title to the apartment.
14.  On 20 November 2006 the Real Estate Inventory Bureau registered the applicant's family's title to the apartment and on 8 December 2006 the enforcement proceedings were terminated.
5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lived in Dnіprodzerzhynsk.
6.  On 14 May 2004 the Dniprovsky District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk awarded the applicant 2,000 hryvnias (UAH) against the Dniprodzerzhynskteplomerezha municipal company and UAH 1,000 against the Dnipropdzerzhynska Teploelectrotsentral State-controlled OJSC.
7.  On 12 August 2004 this judgment became binding for enforcement.
8.  In September 2004 enforcement proceedings were instituted to collect the debts. By 7 July 2005 the first debtor had paid its debt. As regards the second debtor, on several occasions enforcement proceedings were suspended on various grounds (such as insolvency proceedings against the debtor and introduction of a moratorium according to the 2005 Law of Ukraine “On Measures to Ensure the Stable Operation of Fuel and Energy Sector Enterprises”). Currently the proceedings are suspended and the debt remains outstanding.
9.  On 17 June 2008 the applicant died. By a letter of 28 November 2008 the applicant's widower informed the Court of his wish to pursue the application.
5.  The applicant who was born in India lives in Lustenau. She runs an Indian restaurant with Ayurvedic cuisine in Lustenau.
6.  On 1 October 2004 she lodged a request with the Dornbirn Labour Market Service (Arbeitsmarktservice – LMS) for the grant of an employment permit for an Ayurvedic chef from the South of India as a key worker (Schlüsselarbeitskraft).
7.  On 2 November 2004 the Dornbirn LMS refused the request in accordance with section 2(5) of the Aliens' Employment Act (Ausländerbeschäftigungsgesetz). It found that the chef did not fulfil the conditions to be a key worker as defined in section 2(5).
8.  The applicant appealed against the refusal to the Vorarlberg LMS on 17 November 2004. She maintained in substance that the authority had failed to assess properly the evidence.
9.  On 15 February 2005 the Vorarlberg LMS dismissed the applicant's appeal. It held that the submitted documents did not sufficiently prove her contention that the proposed chef fulfilled the conditions required to be a key worker or that the requested employment would secure existing jobs or create new jobs, as required by section 2(5) of the Aliens' Employment Act. His professional skills could not be seen as specific and extraordinary since any chef could with further training obtain a certificate in Ayurvedic cuisine.
10.   The applicant filed a complaint with the Administrative Court on 31 March 2005 and requested an oral hearing. In her appeal the applicant maintained that the authorities had failed to assess the evidence properly and give appropriate reasons. Had they done so they should have concluded that the person to be employed qualified as a key worker. On 7 June 2005 the Voralberg LMS submitted its comments.
11.  On 24 April 2006 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's complaint. In accordance with section 39(2) of the Administrative Court Act (Verwaltungsgerichtshofgesetz) it also dismissed the applicant's request for an oral hearing as it found that it would not be likely to contribute to the clarification of the case. The decision was served on the applicant's counsel on 6 June 2006.
4.  The first applicant was born in 1976, the second in 1946. Both applicants live in the town of Makeyevka, Ukraine.
5.  The applicants are former employees of the State company Shachta imeni K.I. Pochenkova (“the company”).
6.  The applicants instituted proceedings against the company in the Chervonogvardeysky District Court of Makeyevka (“the first-instance court”) requesting it to recalculate the amount of salary paid to them from January 1997 to October 2001 and compensate them for losses sustained as a result of alleged miscalculations made by the company. They also claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage. In their initial submissions the applicants stated that they had instituted these proceedings in April 2002. In their further submissions they alleged that they had instituted them on 19 December 2001. However, according to the registration stamp of the domestic court on the copies of their claims, those claims were registered by the court on 28 March 2003. The applicants did not provide any documents in support of their statement that their claims had been lodged prior to that date.
7.  By two separate judgments of 4 April 2003, the court allowed their claims and awarded the first applicant 2,075.99 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1] and the second applicant UAH 2,301.46[2].
8.  The Chervonogvardeysky District Bailiffs' Service of Makeyevka initiated enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgments given in the applicants' favour.
9.  On an unspecified date the company was liquidated. In June 2003 the applicants requested the court to change the debtor in enforcement proceedings to another State company. By two separate rulings on 17 July 2003 the court allowed their requests and changed the debtor to the State company Ukrvuglerestrukturizatsiya. On 16 and 20 October 2003 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the rulings of the first-instance court and rejected the first and second applicant's requests, respectively. By two separate rulings of 4 and 5 October 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the rulings of the court of appeal given in the first and second applicant's cases.
10.  Later, the applicants lodged extraordinary appeals against the final decisions given in their cases by the Supreme Court. However, their appeals were unsuccessful.
11.  On 3 June 2008 the State Bailiffs' Service returned the enforcement writs to the applicants and terminated the enforcement proceedings.  The judgments in the applicants' favour remain unenforced.